Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 71: Line 71:  
:::::The comments are appreciated.  I think an accessible, contemporary translation of the Bible is important and valuable, just as the approval of Masses being spoken in the vernacular, and not just Latin, was after Vatican Council II.  I'd want to help a project that makes the content of the Bible accessible to more people, but in good conscience I can't do more than copyedit if such fundamental quotes such as the "Father forgive them" one in question here are being removed without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they need to be.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not our place to criticize Biblical text being removed by one group because of their views and then doing the same thing ourselves without making an airtight case first.
 
:::::The comments are appreciated.  I think an accessible, contemporary translation of the Bible is important and valuable, just as the approval of Masses being spoken in the vernacular, and not just Latin, was after Vatican Council II.  I'd want to help a project that makes the content of the Bible accessible to more people, but in good conscience I can't do more than copyedit if such fundamental quotes such as the "Father forgive them" one in question here are being removed without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they need to be.  Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not our place to criticize Biblical text being removed by one group because of their views and then doing the same thing ourselves without making an airtight case first.
 
:::::I've seen analysis offered that the quote doesn't belong, but not airtight proof, and since the general tone of this Talk page acknowledges that this is a controversy among the faithful rather than an outright vandalism of the Bible that needs to be removed, why not restore the quote in the Conservative translation and annotate it?  --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:20, 23 December 2009 (EST)
 
:::::I've seen analysis offered that the quote doesn't belong, but not airtight proof, and since the general tone of this Talk page acknowledges that this is a controversy among the faithful rather than an outright vandalism of the Bible that needs to be removed, why not restore the quote in the Conservative translation and annotate it?  --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:20, 23 December 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::::Chris, of course two wrongs don't make a right.  But this translation will adhere to original intent.  If something was added later, if it is oddly missing in other texts in a way that suggests lack of authenticity, if it conflicts with things we know Jesus said, and if it has an obvious liberal bias to it, then we're not going to keep just to "compromise with" or appease a liberal view.  We take original intent seriously here.
 +
 +
::::::We're open-minded about this particular verse and urge you to be open-minded also.  The continuing discussion about this provision is not a reason for declining to participate in the thousands of other verses.  Hope  you can enjoy the benefits that Newton and many others have throughout history in participating in Bible translation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 23 December 2009 (EST)
    
== Earthly ==
 
== Earthly ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,215

edits

Navigation menu